F-22 or F-35

[Fusaki]

"Alright....another army guy telling us how it is."

OK Now I'm insulted.

Yes I'm an "army guy" and infantry at that. My knuckles do not drag on the ground, and I'm a fairly well informed on several military and non military subjects. The Air Force does not own the patent on intelligence, education or common sense.
Does it ever occur to you that us "army guys" have an interest in what aircraft the CF purchases? We ride in them and depend on them for Close Air Support. We may not be "experts" but we are fairly knowledgable on several subjects, fighter a/c being one of them.
Moral of the story is.....don't judge a book by its cover.

I'm not insulted at all.

I thought the end state of the drama a couple weeks ago (non-issue kit thread) was "I won't tell you how to do your job, and you don't tell me how to do mine." I won't tell AF guys about aircraft and AF guys won't tell me about chest rigs. Whats fair is fair.

I'm sure that you're reasonably well informed on this subject, but discussions like this should be driven by those who make a living at working with aircraft. You and I both depend on the AF to do it's job, but it's better to trust them to do it the way they think is best.  I've debated Chinooks Vs Blackhawks at work among infantry guys, but I wouldn't drive down to 427 Sqn and talk like I was a SME.

 

[Loachman]

I'm not insulted at all.

I thought the end state of the drama a couple weeks ago (non-issue kit thread) was "I won't tell you how to do your job, and you don't tell me how to do mine." I won't tell AF guys about aircraft and AF guys won't tell me about chest rigs. Whats fair is fair.

I'm sure that you're reasonably well informed on this subject, but discussions like this should be driven by those who make a living at working with aircraft. You and I both depend on the AF to do it's job, but it's better to trust them to do it the way they think is best.  I've debated Chinooks Vs Blackhawks at work among infantry guys, but I wouldn't drive down to 427 Sqn and talk like I was a SME.

And that, although more detailed, diplomatic, and eloquent than the more concise controversial response, is exactly it. I am a pilot, but fighter selection is outside of my lane regardless. Were there any fighter pilots in here who wished to speak up I'd certainly listen and possibly question.

Infantry guys are definitely qualified to talk about certain aspects of helicopters, such as space and lift capapabilities, comfort, ease of getting in and out, the abilities of crews to navigate decently or not, and other things which directly affect them but the technical aspects are best left to the specialists.

As for Tac Vests, I do get to wear those, although not as frequently as many, so I do have a "vest"ed interest in that area. I am, however, still very much a seeker of knowledge and benefit of others' experience regarding those.

 

[belka]

Let's hope we all see a twin engine replacement taxi onto the ramp in Cold Lake   Just spoke with a former CF-18 Pilot last night and he is dreading a single-engine replacement for obvious reasons - two engines are better than one.  He told be about a time in the CF-18 when one of his engines conked out over the artic - had it not been for engine #2 he would have been in big trouble!

I would support a single-engine fighter if it was as cheap to replace as the F-16's (considered disposable fighters). Unfortunately, it looks like we are stuck with the F-35. If we do go twin, our only options are the superbug, the raptor, a european product or Sukhoi's. Just throwing that last one in for shits and giggles.  ;D

"Alright....another army guy telling us how it is."

OK Now I'm insulted.

Yes I'm an "army guy" and infantry at that. My knuckles do not drag on the ground, and I'm a fairly well informed on several military and non military subjects. The Air Force does not own the patent on intelligence, education or common sense.
Does it ever occur to you that us "army guys" have an interest in what aircraft the CF purchases? We ride in them and depend on them for Close Air Support. We may not be "experts" but we are fairly knowledgable on several subjects, fighter a/c being one of them.
Moral of the story is.....don't judge a book by its cover.

Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I would support a single-engine fighter if it was as cheap to replace as the F-16's (considered disposable fighters). Unfortunately, it looks like we are stuck with the F-35. If we do go twin, our only options are the superbug, the raptor, a european product or Sukhoi's. Just throwing that last one in for shits and giggles.  ;D

I think you meant you threw in the last two for shits and giggles considering the Raptor is off the table for all but the US.

 

[Loachman]

I would support a single-engine fighter if it was as cheap to replace as the F-16's (considered disposable fighters).

I would support a fighter, regardless of its number of engines, if the people who had to operate it in combat thought that it was the best one for its roles.

Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".

Are you wilfullly admitting to being so unprofessional that you would cause a mission to be aborted for no valid reason other than, perhaps, more "shits and giggles"?

If so, it is you who are, thankfully, the"special breed". You would not last long at my Squadron with an attitude like that.

 

[belka]

I think you meant you threw in the last two for shits and giggles considering the Raptor is off the table for all but the US.

For now it is. I can see an eventual export to Australia or Japan, Canada on the other hand will probably see something less advanced.

 

[aesop081]

Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".

If so, it is you who are, thankfully, the"special breed". You would not last long at my Squadron with an attitude like that.

You wouldnt last long at mine either. Hopefully you and your attitude never cross paths with me.

 

[Good2Golf]

....Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".

NINJA, you lack of apparent professionalism is mind-boggling.  I hope for your sake, that this is only verbal "bluster" here on the forum, and that it does not accurately reflect how you have actually conducted yourself on the line.

Anyone in the business knows that when the aircraft captain signs acceptance of the aircraft in the log set, it is now "his/her" aircraft until such time as they release it back to the maintenance authority on the green sheet.  You would be in no position to "U/S" the aircraft on start for "no reason".  That's absolute crap you're talking. 

Furthermore, aircrew are only 1/3 of the Operator-Maintainer-Supporter equation.  If there's something special that sets them apart, it's that they, unlike the maintainers or supports, are [normally] the only ones potentially not coming back from a mission if the machine doesn't work as advertised. 

As those who have served with me will attest, I am an incredibly easy-going individual; however, don't think for a second that I wouldn't have the SCWO march someone doing such a thing as you mention before me without their headress on!  Such conduct is absolutely unacceptable. 

 

[MedTechStudent]

Its good to see this thread is still in full swing. 

All I'm going to say is that I don't know, and what ever aircraft the pilots who have to fly them think is the most suitable, thats the right choice. 

I don't think you or anyone should argue or press your luck with the experience DS who have obviously BTDT.  For all I know you have as well but since your profile does not disclose it I have to assume otherwise.

Just some advice from a fellow member. 

Cheers!

 

[belka]

NINJA, you lack of apparent professionalism is mind-boggling.  I hope for your sake, that this is only verbal "bluster" here on the forum, and that it does not accurately reflect how you have actually conducted yourself on the line.

Anyone in the business knows that when the aircraft captain signs acceptance of the aircraft in the log set, it is now "his/her" aircraft until such time as they release it back to the maintenance authority on the green sheet.  You would be in no position to "U/S" the aircraft on start for "no reason".  That's absolute crap you're talking. 

Furthermore, aircrew are only 1/3 of the Operator-Maintainer-Supporter equation.  If there's something special that sets them apart, it's that they, unlike the maintainers or supports, are [normally] the only ones potentially not coming back from a mission if the machine doesn't work as advertised. 

As those who have served with me will attest, I am an incredibly easy-going individual; however, don't think for a second that I wouldn't have the SCWO march someone doing such a thing as you mention before me without their headress on!  Such conduct is absolutely unacceptable. 

Apparently, sarcasm is something this place lacks, not to mention the slightest sense of humour.

BTW, I don't see how my posts made here should reflect how I conduct myself on the line or at work. They are completely different scenerios and have nothing to do with eachother.

 

[Loachman]

You might want to be a little more careful in how you word your posts in future, then.

I went through several of your previous ones before composing my response and the overal impression that they gave me was entirely consistent with my impression of your post in question.

That three aircrew members, who have rather well developed senses of humour, came to the same conclusion should give you cause to reassess your style as well.

I will grant you that this form of communication is far from perfect - hastily typed for the most part, and lacking in tone and body language - and is easily misinterpreted. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but this one combined with certain predecessors made it hard to do so.

Sarcasm can backfire at the best of times.

 

[NovaScotiaNewfie]

Are we to look at this type of discussion as just that? A what if topic or try to factor real facts?

What I mean is the Raptor would carry a far too price tag for Canada, plus you have to look at the costs of maintenance, training. I have no idea how procurement is actually done but I would assume that for our budget Canada has to look at what role they would need..air superiority vs a fighter strike aircraft and what would fill the needs for the AF/CF as a whole and what are reasonable costs.

I also assume that when it comes to equipment especially major/expensive equipment like tanks, aircraft, ships they consider what likely mission's Canada is to be involved in over the forceable future and what best fits that need. They would also consider what would fit the role of the air defence of Canada and would they be likely to be deployed overseas for either figher, bomber duties or close air support.

My guess would be if this was a choice that the DND was going to look at the F-35 would be the likely choice on costs alone, plus would the US ever be likely to sell the F-22 even to it's allies.

I tired to make this a somewhat intelligent/realistic answer. As I said I don't really know how procurement is done.

 

[MarkOttawa]

NovaScotiaNewfie:  Well put.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[lonewolf84]

I think the F-35 is better than F/A-22  for Canada. Why? He is less expensive than F/A-22 and can do the same job of our CF-18. For me, the big problem with F-35 is it's a single engine, so if you have a engine prob over the arctic,  :skull:  .  So when did we do air combat against fighter for the last time??? Yes, a lot of time we intercept Russian bomber over Canadian NORAD region. I think the last air to air combat and kill score by the Canada is over corea. We do a lot of CAS mission over kosovo in 1998-99 and air defence patrol over Kuwait and Irak in 1990-1991.

sorry for my english, i speaf french.

 

[Loachman]

Your English is far better than my French. No need to apologize.

It's not a popularity contest, though, and votes of members here do not count.

The selection process is far more complex and thorough than that.

It's not the last fighter-versus-fighter battle that is significant, it's the next one.

It's not the last or current threat situation that is significant, it's the next one.

And, whatever that's considered to be at the top, it's not going to form part of any discussion at that level in public, as we're trying to be nice to those people at present.

True performance data, radar and weapons capabilities, and other pertinent factors are not going to be published either.

Without any sound information to go on, this is all just idle speculation by people who completely lack the knowledge necessary and will never have to employ it.

And that includes me.

 

[aesop081]

For me, the big problem with F-35 is it's a single engine, so if you have a engine prob over the arctic,  :skull:  . 

Lots of peple bring this up. I used to be a firm beleiver in that argumen too. That being said, alot of other "northern" countries use single-engined fighters in similar conditions.

So when did we do air combat against fighter for the last time???

Wait a minute, isnt that exactly what we were saying about tanks and artillery not so long ago.

 

[Loachman]

Lots of peple bring this up. I used to be a firm beleiver in that argumen too. That being said, alot of other "northern" countries use single-engined fighters in similar conditions.

Most of my 4000-plus hours has been spent quite happily in a single-engined machine and it never gave me cause for concern.

Most of that was over dry, relatively level ground in daylight, yes, but plenty was at night over wilderness or urban areas (police helicopter), mountainous terrain far from civilization both above and below the Arctic Circle, and open (enough) water. Engines are extremely reliable (note that airliners have gone from four to two engines as reliability has improved), and, besides, there are plenty of other things that can go wrong catastrophically.

The only Kiowa engine failures that I know of, during my time flying them, were fuel starvation (and one can have all of the engines that one wants, but when the tank runs dry...), inadvertent sabotage by kids messing with an unguarded Kiowa (they drained the oil tank), and a factory quality control problem that led to a couple of flame-outs at idle RPM only and never in flight. I've known guys who have died from a bizarre hydraulic failure and a freewheeling unit failure, several lucky enough to get onto the ground before their transmission completely destroyed itself internally, and many (including me) stranded for varying lengths of time in hospitable and less hospitable places for various minor or precautionary aircraft-related reasons.

An AWACS was lost several years ago due to multiple large bird strikes in several, if not all, engines.

There are no guarantees, certainly not based upon engine quantity alone. Engine quantity is only one of many factors.

This thread reminds me of a group of eleven-year-old boys discussing the finer points of sex.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think the F-35 is better than F/A-22  for Canada. Why? He is less expensive than F/A-22 and can do the same job of our CF-18. For me, the big problem with F-35 is it's a single engine, so if you have a engine prob over the arctic,  :skull:  .  So when did we do air combat against fighter for the last time??? Yes, a lot of time we intercept Russian bomber over Canadian NORAD region. I think the last air to air combat and kill score by the Canada is over corea. We do a lot of CAS mission over kosovo in 1998-99 and air defence patrol over Kuwait and Irak in 1990-1991.

sorry for my english, i speaf french.

Lonewolf, it's always an interesting point about single engine aircraft.  With my own personal experience, I have only ever had one catastrophic engine failure, where a power turbine blade failed, caused the N2 turbine shroud to collapse and broke off all the N2 turbine blades, which went every which way, including through the combustion chamber casing, out the exhaust stack, many turbine fragments impaling themselves in the fuselage and main rotor blade, and causing a general mess of my chopper.  The aircraft was a Twin Huey, with two engines...some of us consider that (statistically) means twice as much chance for something to go wrong.    The F-16 has one of the best records for engine-related shutdowns in flight.  Interestingly, one of the most reliable helicopters in the world for flight hours flown is the Bell 206 Jet Ranger (including military variants).  Often the benefit of a second (or multiple) engine is to make the effects of an engine failure less, not necessarily to eliminate engine failures altogether.  Some single-engined aircraft are the extreme...they couldn't operate as well with a second engine (Harrier, etc...) 

I'd rather have a single-engined aircraft that was more reliable than a dual-engined aircraft that had less reliability.  In the end, the required characteristics of the aircraft will drive what the best solution would be.  I see the F-35/F-22 debate as the next generation of the F-16/F-15[F-18] debate.  It's not really a debate at all...these are different classes of aircraft and the final determining factor would be the mission set that you want to accomplish with the capability.

cheers
G2G

 

[Loachman]

G2G is long past eleven.

 

[MarkOttawa]

F-35: $110 million!!!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.37874693.1212754793.eq8G0H8AAAEAABN2YgYAAAAF&manuel_call_cat=5&manuel_call_prod=94891&manuel_call_mod=feature&modele=jdc_inter

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s June 3 hearing on the cost of Pentagon weapon programs has thrown up a couple of nuggets that demonstrate just how politically vulnerable the Joint Strike Fighter program has become.

In his opening statement ,
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=298687
SASC Chairman Carl Levin quoted a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which estimated that recent cost overruns on the Pentagon’s 95 major weapons programs amount to $295 billion.

To put that figure into perspective, Levin said, “For $295 billion, we could buy, at current prices, two new aircraft carriers for $10 billion each and 8 Virginia class submarines for $2.5 billion each, and 500 V-22 Ospreys for $120 million each, and 500 Joint Strike Fighters for $110 million each (emphasis added-Ed.), and 10,0000 MRAPs for $1.4 million each -- all of that and still have enough money left over to pay for the entire $130 billion Future Combat System program."

Two of these figures deserve special attention.

The first is the $110 million that Levin quotes as the current unit price for the Joint Strike Fighter. This is the first time an official source has conceded that the JSF will cost substantially more than the $55-$65 million consistently quoted by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin.

While neither it nor the Pentagon has challenged Levin’s figure, Lockheed continues to quote far lower prices to customers. Referring to a possible JSF sale to Israel, Lockheed spokesman John Smith told Reuters June 4 that the "average unit recurring flyaway costs" for the F-35A "have remained stable in the upper $40 million range in baseline 2002 dollars,” which is at variance from all other estimates.

(Admittedly, Levin’s price is in current dollars, while Lockheed’s is in FY2002 dollars, but six years of 3% inflation would increase Lockheed’s price by less than 20%, to well under $50 million.)

Levin’s $110 million price tag vindicates the GAO’s statement, set out in a March 11 report , that it has no confidence in the ability of the Joint Strike Fighter program office to accurately estimate costs.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

GAO’s doubts were bolstered this week when the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group, released the executive summary of a November 2007 report by the Pentagon’s own Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) that states, in a nutshell, that Lockheed is virtually unable to control costs on the JSF program and that its system for tracking costs and schedules has generated "useless" or "suspect" data...
http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/jsf/dcma-report-20071119.pdf

Mark
Ottawa